The cries are answered

The government offers a package of reforms to appease protesters. Is it enough?

THE tide of street demonstrations that rose across Brazil earlier this month, following what began as a small protest about São Paulo bus fares, seems to have ebbed. High water was reached on June 20th, when more than 1m people turned out to protest against poor public services, corruption, the cost of living, extravagant spending on the World Cup and much else. Smaller demonstrations continue: police used tear gas against 50,000 people protesting outside a football stadium on June 26th. But more attention is focused on politicians’ response to the huge and sudden outpouring of public frustration.

After meeting protest leaders, city mayors and state governors, Dilma Rousseff, the president, offered a “national pact”. Its five points were: a constituent assembly to consider political reform; making corruption a felony (today it is a misdemeanour); a promise to invest 50 billion reais ($23 billion) in city transport; more spending on health and education; and, contradicting that somewhat, a reiteration of the importance of fiscal responsibility.

Though some details were sensible, this plan seemed rushed and unlikely to provide lasting calm. Its centrepiece, the proposal for a constituent assembly, was unconstitutional and, it seems, launched without consultation—not even with Michel Temer, the vice-president, who is a constitutional lawyer. It was quickly withdrawn. In its place officials were talking about holding a referendum in August on proposals for political reform, which Congress would then turn into laws.

The reform of politics has been discussed for years and is urgently needed. But Brazil’s 30-odd political parties, few of which have any ideology beyond the search for patronage and pork, have little appetite for change. Ms Rousseff’s Workers’ Party (PT) wants public financing of campaigns and a closed list of candidates chosen by party leaders; others want to switch to a constituency system. One of the most important changes would be to abolish the over-representation of small states—but neither the PT nor its backwoods allies are likely to favour that.

Ms Rousseff promised incentives for doctors to move to poor areas and vowed to expand a programme that cancels the tax debts of hospitals that attend to more patients. She pledged to increase the number of medical graduates and, meanwhile, import foreign doctors to meet demand. Some of her other proposals are retreads, and will take time to implement. “The fact is there is no quick fix. This is a years- and decades-long process,” says Christopher Garman of the Eurasia Group, a risk-analysis firm. Sadly, the president shows no sign of cutting the government bloat that might allow her to pay for better services.

Sensing the public’s anger, congressional leaders promised not to go into recess until Ms Rousseff’s plans are debated. On June 25th Congress voted overwhelmingly to reject a constitutional amendment that would have curbed prosecutors’ powers to investigate politicians, which had been a focus of protesters’ outrage. It also passed a bill, which it had rejected last year, to devote three-quarters of royalties from new oilfields to education and the rest to health.

Ms Rousseff expressed sympathy for the protesters, but denounced the mindless violence of a minority that marred some of the largely peaceful demonstrations. Nine people were killed during a police operation in a Rio de Janeiro favela after a protest march on June 24th.

Much of the ire has focused on the Confederations Cup, a warm-up tournament for next year’s football World Cup. The World Cup is costing Brazil 28.1 billion reais, according to the government. The bill for stadiums alone, originally estimated at $1.1 billion, has already reached more than $3 billion. Ms Rousseff claimed the government loans for stadiums will be paid back in full and do not come from the ordinary budget. Rather, they are subsidised credits from the National Development Bank to construction companies—big funders of political parties.

Football-mad Brazilians are not against the Cup, but they are angered that the promised “legacy” of the competition is in doubt. Airports remain mired in the last century, and at least five of the 12 host cities have admitted they will not build the promised bus lanes, metros or monorails before kickoff. “Cut bus fares and send the bill to FIFA,” read one of many signs mocking football’s governing body. Corinthians, a São Paulo team, blamed FIFA for doubling the cost of its new stadium with its extravagant demands.

It is still not clear who might benefit from the unrest. When Datafolha, a pollster, asked demonstrators in São Paulo to name their preferred presidential candidate, they favoured two people outside the political mainstream. Joaquim Barbosa, a supreme-court justice and anti-corruption campaigner, led the poll with 30% and Marina Silva, a former Green presidential candidate, was second with 22%. But Mr Barbosa has shown no sign he wants to run in next year’s election and Ms Silva, who won 19% in 2010, is struggling to put together a coherent anti-party political party.

One person to watch is once again Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s president in 2003-10 and mentor to Ms Rousseff. He has said he would run again if voters clamoured for his return. That might happen if Ms Rousseff cannot quell the unrest. Lula has kept uncharacteristically quiet so far, even as he helped his protégée behind the scenes. He would relish the role of national saviour. But many of the targets of the protesters are problems that, as president, he did little to solve.